DOCSLIB.ORG

Section B4: Unit Roots and Cointegration Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Section B4: Unit Roots and Cointegration Analysis Section B4: Unit Roots and Cointegration Analysis B4.1. Cointegrated Time Series Some pairs of economic time series (e.g., wholesale and retail prices of a single commodity) may be expected to follow similar patterns of change over time. Even when short-term conditions cause such series to diverge, economic and/or policy dynamics will eventually force them back into equilibrium. In the economics literature, such pairs of data series are called cointegrated series. To analyze cointegrated time series, we conceptualize them as stochastic processes, i.e., processes subject to randomness, and define properties of these processes. The notation in this section differs from that of Sections 1 through 3. B4.2. Definitions of Short and Long Memory Stochastic Processes We begin by defining some properties of stochastic processes. The stochastic process { } is stationary (or strictly stationary) if, for every collection of time indices , the joint distribution of is the same as the joint distribution of � for�= 1all integers 1. It follows that the are identically distributed. +ℎ � �=1 � �=1 ℎ ≥ Because strict stationarity is defined in terms of the joint distributions of subsets of the stochastic process, the strict stationary of an empirical data series is often difficult to establish. Many data series, however, are clearly nonstationary, e.g., series that clearly display trends or cycles. Covariance stationarity is defined in terms of the moments of the stochastic process and is thus easier to establish for an empirical data series. The stochastic process { } is covariance stationary if, for some constant , [ ]= , [ ] = (constant variance), and (B4.2.1) 2= ( ), for 1. , +ℎ If a strictly stationary process has� a finite� second ℎ moment,ℎ ≥ it is covariance stationary. A covariance stationary series, however, need not be stationary. A covariance stationary process { } is a white noise process if [ ] =0, [ ] = 0 for 0 (uncorrolated), and (B4.2.2) [ ] = (constant variance). −ℎ 2 ℎ ≠ As , { } will frequently cross the horizontal axis and frequently return to values near its mean 0. White noise is used to model unexplained short-term movements in a data series. → ∞ Let { } be a white noise process, and let = ∞ . (B4.2.3) − � =0 If 0 as , then { } is a short memory process. When { } is a short memory process with constant mean and finite variance, we say that { } is integrated of order 0 and write { }~→(0). White → ∞ noise, for example, is a short memory process. In a typical empirical time series generated by a short memory process, autocorrelation is present but limited. When 0 as , { } is a long memory process. ↛ → ∞ B4.2. Analyzing Short and Long Memory Stochastic Processes If { } is a long memory process, an old shock to the system ( , where h is large) still has an effect on . If, however, { } is a short memory process, the effect of on diminishes −ℎ quickly as h increases, i.e., the process “forgets” old shocks. Although short memory processes −ℎ are usually serially correlated , the covariance of the values between two time periods diminishes as the distance between the time periods grows ( [ , ] 0 as ). −ℎ Differencing a Long Memory Process → ℎ → ∞ In many cases, differencing a long memory process produces a short memory process. Let = + , (B4.2.4) −1 where is a white noise process. Then, although { } is a long memory process, the differenced process = = (B4.2.5) −1 is a short memory process. When { }∆ is a long −memory process and { } is a short memory process, we say that { } is integrated of order 1 and write { } ~ (1). ∆ Cointegration Before presenting a rigorous definition of cointegration, we state some facts about linear combinations of (0) and (1) processes. Let and be constants. a) If { }~ (0), then + is (0). b) If { }~(1), then + is (1). c) A linear combination of short memory processes is a short memory process, i.e., if { }~ (0), and { }~ (0), then + is (0). d) A linear combination of a short memory process and a long memory process is a long memory process, i.e., if { }~ (0), and { }~ (1), then + is (1). Definition of Cointegration A linear combination of two long memory processes is a long memory process unless the two processes “share” the same long-term memory. Suppose { }~ (1) and { }~ (1). If there exist constants m, a, and b such that 1. + + is (0) and 2. [ + + ] = 0, then { } and {} are cointegrated. Intuitively, because cointegrated long memory series share the same long-term memory, their long-term memories cancel out in the linear combination, leaving a short memory series. In the econometrics literature, the term “cointegrated” is commonly used even when the relationship between the two series is not strictly linear (e.g., it may be log-linear). Problem of Spurious Regression In time series regression analysis, we assume that one time series can be expressed as a linear combination of other time series, modulo an error term. When the time series have long memories, we are assuming cointegration. Traditional regression diagnostics can be deceptive in the presence of long memory series. In particular, we may see high values of and low standard errors, leading to inflated t-statistics. There is a high probability of regression2 diagnostics indicating a relationship between two independent, randomly generated (1) series (Newbold and Granger 1974). Differencing the series may eliminate this problem but allows only analysis of short-run changes. Use of additional statistical tests and diagnostics enables us to analyze long-run relationships between cointegrated series. B4.3. Testing for Unit Roots Definition of a Unit Root Process in the Linear Case If = + + , (B4.3.1) −1 where ( | , , … , ) = 0, then { } has a unit root if and only if | | = 1. −1 −2 0 When = 1 and = 0, { } is a random walk without drift. When = 1 and 0, { } is a random walk with drift (Figure 5). Unit root processes are long memory processes. ≠ Testing : | | = 1 Observe that 0 • When < 0, { } is negatively autocorrelated, which is rare in economic time series. • When | | > 1, { } is blowing up (positive or negative). So we are usually interested in testing : = 1 vs. : 0 < < 1. (B4.3.2) 0 1 Dickey-Fuller Test for a Unit Root We set = 1. Then − = + + (B4.3.3) −1 −1 ∆ = + −+ Now we can test −1 : = 0 vs. : < 0. (B4.3.4) 0 1 We can compute the usual t-statistic for the hypothesis test. However, under , the t-statistic is not asymptotically normal. Dickey and Fuller (1979) tabulated the critical values for the 0 asymptotic distribution, which is known as the Dickey-Fuller (DF) distribution. Asymptotic Critical Values for the Dickey-Fuller (DF) Unit Root Test Significance Level 1% 2.5% 5% 10% Critical Value -3.43 -3.12 -2.86 -2.57 We reject : = 0 against the alternative : < 0 if the t-statistic < , where c is one of the critical values above. 0 1 � If is strongly negative, we have evidence for rejecting the hypothesis that { }~ (1) in favor of the hypothesis that { }~ (0). Otherwise, we suspect that { } has a unit root, and spurious � regression is a concern. Application of the asymptotic critical values for the DF test requires a large sample, i.e., a long time series. Critical values for small samples have also been tabulated and are available in statistical software packages such as SAS and R. The power of a hypothesis test is the probability of not committing a Type II error. Type II error is failing to reject a false null hypothesis. Unit root tests have been criticized for their low power. There is a relatively high probability that these tests may indicate a unit root in a series with no unit roots. In addition to the DF test, other tests for autocorrelation and unit roots are discussed in the literature (e.g., Ljung-Box, Durbin-Watson). The DF test is popular because it is simple and robust. The Cointegrating Parameter Suppose we have determined that { } and { } both have unit roots. • If { } and { } are not cointegrated, regression of one series on the other may be “spurious.” • If { } and { } are cointegrated, we are interested in the cointegrating parameter such that is an (0) process. When we know − or hypothesize the cointegrating parameter , we can set = and perform the standard DF test on the series { }. If we find evidence that { } has a unit root, we may conclude that { } and { } are not cointegrated. (In practice, we may also consider− that our hypothesized value of may be incorrect.) The null hypothesis in the DF test is that { } has a unit root, i.e., that { } and { } are not cointegrated. When { } and { } are cointegrated, the OLS estimator from the regression ̂ = + + (B4.3.5) is a consistent estimator of . However, under� the ̂null hypotheses that = has a unit root, we must run a spurious regression to obtain . − To perform the DF test with an estimated value of ̂ , we set = , (B4.3.6) where is the OLS estimator of . Davidson� and −McKinnon̂ (1993) tabulated critical values for the DF test for the presence of a unit root in the series { }. ̂ Asymptotic Critical Values for the Dickey-Fuller (DF)� Unit Root Test with Estimated Significance Level 1% 2.5% 5% 10% Critical Value -3.90 -3.59 -3.34 -3.04 To perform a cointegration test with an estimated value of , we run the regression = + + (B4.3.7) −1 and test : = 0 against the alternative∆� : <0�. If the t-statistic is below the critical value, we have evidence that { } and { } are cointegrated. When is estimated, we must get a t- 0 1 statistic more strongly negative to show cointegration. This is because OLS tends to produce residuals that look like an (0) sequence even when { } and { } are not cointegrated. Cointegration Test for Series with Linear Time Trends Suppose { } and { } display linear time trends.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lecture 6A: Unit Root and ARIMA Models
    Lecture 6a: Unit Root and ARIMA Models 1 Big Picture • A time series is non-stationary if it contains a unit root unit root ) nonstationary The reverse is not true. • Many results of traditional statistical theory do not apply to unit root process, such as law of large number and central limit theory. • We will learn a formal test for the unit root • For unit root process, we need to apply ARIMA model; that is, we take difference (maybe several times) before applying the ARMA model. 2 Review: Deterministic Difference Equation • Consider the first order equation (without stochastic shock) yt = ϕ0 + ϕ1yt−1 • We can use the method of iteration to show that when ϕ1 = 1 the series is yt = ϕ0t + y0 • So there is no steady state; the series will be trending if ϕ0 =6 0; and the initial value has permanent effect. 3 Unit Root Process • Consider the AR(1) process yt = ϕ0 + ϕ1yt−1 + ut where ut may and may not be white noise. We assume ut is a zero-mean stationary ARMA process. • This process has unit root if ϕ1 = 1 In that case the series converges to yt = ϕ0t + y0 + (ut + u2 + ::: + ut) (1) 4 Remarks • The ϕ0t term implies that the series will be trending if ϕ0 =6 0: • The series is not mean-reverting. Actually, the mean changes over time (assuming y0 = 0): E(yt) = ϕ0t • The series has non-constant variance var(yt) = var(ut + u2 + ::: + ut); which is a function of t: • In short, the unit root process is not stationary.
    [Show full text]
  • Econometrics Basics: Avoiding Spurious Regression
    Econometrics Basics: Avoiding Spurious Regression John E. Floyd University of Toronto July 24, 2013 We deal here with the problem of spurious regression and the techniques for recognizing and avoiding it. The nature of this problem can be best understood by constructing a few purely random-walk variables and then regressing one of them on the others. The figure below plots a random walk or unit root variable that can be represented by the equation yt = ρ yt−1 + ϵt (1) which can be written alternatively in Dickey-Fuller form as ∆yt = − (1 − ρ) yt−1 + ϵt (2) where yt is the level of the series at time t , ϵt is a series of drawings of a zero-mean, constant-variance normal random variable, and (1 − ρ) can be viewed as the mean-reversion parameter. If ρ = 1 , there is no mean-reversion and yt is a random walk. Notice that, apart from the short-term variations, the series trends upward for the first quarter of its length, then downward for a bit more than the next quarter and upward for the remainder of its length. This series will tend to be correlated with other series that move in either the same or the oppo- site directions during similar parts of their length. And if our series above is regressed on several other random-walk-series regressors, one can imagine that some or even all of those regressors will turn out to be statistically sig- nificant even though by construction there is no causal relationship between them|those parts of the dependent variable that are not correlated directly with a particular independent variable may well be correlated with it when the correlation with other independent variables is simultaneously taken into account.
    [Show full text]
  • Commodity Prices and Unit Root Tests
    Commodity Prices and Unit Root Tests Dabin Wang and William G. Tomek Paper presented at the NCR-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management St. Louis, Missouri, April 19-20, 2004 Copyright 2004 by Dabin Wang and William G. Tomek. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. Graduate student and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University. Warren Hall, Ithaca NY 14853-7801 e-mails: [email protected] and [email protected] Commodity Prices and Unit Root Tests Abstract Endogenous variables in structural models of agricultural commodity markets are typically treated as stationary. Yet, tests for unit roots have rather frequently implied that commodity prices are not stationary. This seeming inconsistency is investigated by focusing on alternative specifications of unit root tests. We apply various specifications to Illinois farm prices of corn, soybeans, barrows and gilts, and milk for the 1960 through 2002 time span. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that nominal prices do not have unit roots, but under certain specifications, the null hypothesis of a unit root cannot be rejected, particularly when the logarithms of prices are used. If the test specification does not account for a structural change that shifts the mean of the variable, the results are biased toward concluding that a unit root exists. In general, the evidence does not favor the existence of unit roots. Keywords: commodity price, unit root tests.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing for Cointegration When Some of The
    EconometricTheory, 11, 1995, 984-1014. Printed in the United States of America. TESTINGFOR COINTEGRATION WHEN SOME OF THE COINTEGRATINGVECTORS ARE PRESPECIFIED MICHAELT.K. HORVATH Stanford University MARKW. WATSON Princeton University Manyeconomic models imply that ratios, simpledifferences, or "spreads"of variablesare I(O).In these models, cointegratingvectors are composedof l's, O's,and - l's and containno unknownparameters. In this paper,we develop tests for cointegrationthat can be appliedwhen some of the cointegratingvec- tors are prespecifiedunder the null or underthe alternativehypotheses. These tests are constructedin a vectorerror correction model and are motivatedas Waldtests from a Gaussianversion of the model. Whenall of the cointegrat- ing vectorsare prespecifiedunder the alternative,the tests correspondto the standardWald tests for the inclusionof errorcorrection terms in the VAR. Modificationsof this basictest are developedwhen a subsetof the cointegrat- ing vectorscontain unknown parameters. The asymptoticnull distributionsof the statisticsare derived,critical values are determined,and the local power propertiesof the test are studied.Finally, the test is appliedto data on for- eign exchangefuture and spot pricesto test the stabilityof the forward-spot premium. 1. INTRODUCTION Economic models often imply that variables are cointegrated with simple and known cointegrating vectors. Examples include the neoclassical growth model, which implies that income, consumption, investment, and the capi- tal stock will grow in a balanced way, so that any stochastic growth in one of the series must be matched by corresponding growth in the others. Asset This paper has benefited from helpful comments by Neil Ericsson, Gordon Kemp, Andrew Levin, Soren Johansen, John McDermott, Pierre Perron, Peter Phillips, James Stock, and three referees.
    [Show full text]
  • Conditional Heteroscedastic Cointegration Analysis with Structural Breaks a Study on the Chinese Stock Markets
    Conditional Heteroscedastic Cointegration Analysis with Structural Breaks A study on the Chinese stock markets Authors: Supervisor: Andrea P.G. Kratz Frederik Lundtofte Heli M.K. Raulamo VT 2011 Abstract A large number of studies have shown that macroeconomic variables can explain co- movements in stock market returns in developed markets. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether this relation also holds in China’s two stock markets. By doing a heteroscedastic cointegration analysis, the long run relation is investigated. The results show that it is difficult to determine if a cointegrating relationship exists. This could be caused by conditional heteroscedasticity and possible structural break(s) apparent in the sample. Keywords: cointegration, conditional heteroscedasticity, structural break, China, global financial crisis Table of contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 2. The Chinese stock market ...................................................................................................... 5 3. Previous research .................................................................................................................... 7 3.1. Stock market and macroeconomic variables ................................................................ 7 3.2. The Chinese market ..................................................................................................... 9 4. Theory .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Roots and Cointegration in Panels Jörg Breitung M
    Unit roots and cointegration in panels Jörg Breitung (University of Bonn and Deutsche Bundesbank) M. Hashem Pesaran (Cambridge University) Discussion Paper Series 1: Economic Studies No 42/2005 Discussion Papers represent the authors’ personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Deutsche Bundesbank or its staff. Editorial Board: Heinz Herrmann Thilo Liebig Karl-Heinz Tödter Deutsche Bundesbank, Wilhelm-Epstein-Strasse 14, 60431 Frankfurt am Main, Postfach 10 06 02, 60006 Frankfurt am Main Tel +49 69 9566-1 Telex within Germany 41227, telex from abroad 414431, fax +49 69 5601071 Please address all orders in writing to: Deutsche Bundesbank, Press and Public Relations Division, at the above address or via fax +49 69 9566-3077 Reproduction permitted only if source is stated. ISBN 3–86558–105–6 Abstract: This paper provides a review of the literature on unit roots and cointegration in panels where the time dimension (T ), and the cross section dimension (N) are relatively large. It distinguishes between the ¯rst generation tests developed on the assumption of the cross section independence, and the second generation tests that allow, in a variety of forms and degrees, the dependence that might prevail across the di®erent units in the panel. In the analysis of cointegration the hypothesis testing and estimation problems are further complicated by the possibility of cross section cointegration which could arise if the unit roots in the di®erent cross section units are due to common random walk components. JEL Classi¯cation: C12, C15, C22, C23. Keywords: Panel Unit Roots, Panel Cointegration, Cross Section Dependence, Common E®ects Nontechnical Summary This paper provides a review of the theoretical literature on testing for unit roots and cointegration in panels where the time dimension (T ), and the cross section dimension (N) are relatively large.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 18 Cointegration
    RS – EC2 - Lecture 18 Lecture 18 Cointegration 1 Spurious Regression • Suppose yt and xt are I(1). We regress yt against xt. What happens? • The usual t-tests on regression coefficients can show statistically significant coefficients, even if in reality it is not so. • This the spurious regression problem (Granger and Newbold (1974)). • In a Spurious Regression the errors would be correlated and the standard t-statistic will be wrongly calculated because the variance of the errors is not consistently estimated. Note: This problem can also appear with I(0) series –see, Granger, Hyung and Jeon (1998). 1 RS – EC2 - Lecture 18 Spurious Regression - Examples Examples: (1) Egyptian infant mortality rate (Y), 1971-1990, annual data, on Gross aggregate income of American farmers (I) and Total Honduran money supply (M) ŷ = 179.9 - .2952 I - .0439 M, R2 = .918, DW = .4752, F = 95.17 (16.63) (-2.32) (-4.26) Corr = .8858, -.9113, -.9445 (2). US Export Index (Y), 1960-1990, annual data, on Australian males’ life expectancy (X) ŷ = -2943. + 45.7974 X, R2 = .916, DW = .3599, F = 315.2 (-16.70) (17.76) Corr = .9570 (3) Total Crime Rates in the US (Y), 1971-1991, annual data, on Life expectancy of South Africa (X) ŷ = -24569 + 628.9 X, R2 = .811, DW = .5061, F = 81.72 (-6.03) (9.04) Corr = .9008 Spurious Regression - Statistical Implications • Suppose yt and xt are unrelated I(1) variables. We run the regression: y t x t t • True value of β=0. The above is a spurious regression and et ∼ I(1).
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Linear Restrictions on Cointegration Vectors: Sizes and Powers of Wald Tests in Finite Samples
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Haug, Alfred A. Working Paper Testing linear restrictions on cointegration vectors: Sizes and powers of Wald tests in finite samples Technical Report, No. 1999,04 Provided in Cooperation with: Collaborative Research Center 'Reduction of Complexity in Multivariate Data Structures' (SFB 475), University of Dortmund Suggested Citation: Haug, Alfred A. (1999) : Testing linear restrictions on cointegration vectors: Sizes and powers of Wald tests in finite samples, Technical Report, No. 1999,04, Universität Dortmund, Sonderforschungsbereich 475 - Komplexitätsreduktion in Multivariaten Datenstrukturen, Dortmund This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/77134 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung
    [Show full text]
  • SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX a Time Series Model of Interest Rates
    SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX A Time Series Model of Interest Rates With the Effective Lower Bound⇤ Benjamin K. Johannsen† Elmar Mertens Federal Reserve Board Bank for International Settlements April 16, 2018 Abstract This appendix contains supplementary results as well as further descriptions of computa- tional procedures for our paper. Section I, describes the MCMC sampler used in estimating our model. Section II describes the computation of predictive densities. Section III reports ad- ditional estimates of trends and stochastic volatilities well as posterior moments of parameter estimates from our baseline model. Section IV reports estimates from an alternative version of our model, where the CBO unemployment rate gap is used as business cycle measure in- stead of the CBO output gap. Section V reports trend estimates derived from different variable orderings in the gap VAR of our model. Section VI compares the forecasting performance of our model to the performance of the no-change forecast from the random-walk model over a period that begins in 1985 and ends in 2017:Q2. Sections VII and VIII describe the particle filtering methods used for the computation of marginal data densities as well as the impulse responses. ⇤The views in this paper do not necessarily represent the views of the Bank for International Settlements, the Federal Reserve Board, any other person in the Federal Reserve System or the Federal Open Market Committee. Any errors or omissions should be regarded as solely those of the authors. †For correspondence: Benjamin K. Johannsen, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington D.C. 20551. email [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Models and Probabilities in the Monetary Policy Process
    1017-01 BPEA/Sims 12/30/02 14:48 Page 1 CHRISTOPHER A. SIMS Princeton University The Role of Models and Probabilities in the Monetary Policy Process This is a paper on the way data relate to decisionmaking in central banks. One component of the paper is based on a series of interviews with staff members and a few policy committee members of four central banks: the Swedish Riksbank, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of England, and the U.S. Federal Reserve. These interviews focused on the policy process and sought to determine how forecasts were made, how uncertainty was characterized and handled, and what role formal economic models played in the process at each central bank. In each of the four central banks, “subjective” forecasting, based on data analysis by sectoral “experts,” plays an important role. At the Federal Reserve, a seventeen-year record of model-based forecasts can be com- pared with a longer record of subjective forecasts, and a second compo- nent of this paper is an analysis of these records. Two of the central banks—the Riksbank and the Bank of England— have explicit inflation-targeting policies that require them to set quantita- tive targets for inflation and to publish, several times a year, their forecasts of inflation. A third component of the paper discusses the effects of such a policy regime on the policy process and on the role of models within it. The large models in use in central banks today grew out of a first generation of large models that were thought to be founded on the statisti- cal theory of simultaneous-equations models.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Applied Econometrics
    Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Applied Econometrics Jozef Barunik IES, FSV, UK Summer Semester 2010/2011 Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 1 / 18 Introduction Readings Readings 1 The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (2003): Time Series Econometrics: Cointegration and Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity, downloadable from: http://www-stat.wharton.upenn.edu/∼steele/HoldingPen/NobelPrizeInfo.pdf 2 Granger,C.W.J. (2003): Time Series, Cointegration and Applications, Nobel lecture, December 8, 2003 3 Harris Using Cointegration Analysis in Econometric Modelling, 1995 (Useful applied econometrics textbook focused solely on cointegration) 4 Almost all textbooks cover the introduction to cointegration Engle-Granger procedure (single equation procedure), Johansen multivariate framework (covered in the following lecture) Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 2 / 18 Introduction Outline Outline of the today's talk What is cointegration? Deriving Error-Correction Model (ECM) Engle-Granger procedure Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 3 / 18 Introduction Outline Outline of the today's talk What is cointegration? Deriving Error-Correction Model (ECM) Engle-Granger procedure Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 3 / 18 Introduction Outline Outline of the today's talk What is cointegration? Deriving Error-Correction Model (ECM) Engle-Granger procedure Jozef Barunik (IES, FSV, UK) Lecture: Introduction to Cointegration Summer Semester 2010/2011 3 / 18 Introduction Outline Robert F. Engle and Clive W.J. Granger Robert F. Engle shared the Nobel prize (2003) \for methods of analyzing economic time series with time-varying volatility (ARCH) with Clive W.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Power and Size Properties of Cointegration Tests in the Light of High-Frequency Stylized Facts
    Journal of Risk and Financial Management Article On the Power and Size Properties of Cointegration Tests in the Light of High-Frequency Stylized Facts Christopher Krauss *,† and Klaus Herrmann † University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Lange Gasse 20, 90403 Nürnberg, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-0911-5302-278 † The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of affiliated institutions. Academic Editor: Teodosio Perez-Amaral Received: 10 October 2016; Accepted: 31 January 2017; Published: 7 February 2017 Abstract: This paper establishes a selection of stylized facts for high-frequency cointegrated processes, based on one-minute-binned transaction data. A methodology is introduced to simulate cointegrated stock pairs, following none, some or all of these stylized facts. AR(1)-GARCH(1,1) and MR(3)-STAR(1)-GARCH(1,1) processes contaminated with reversible and non-reversible jumps are used to model the cointegration relationship. In a Monte Carlo simulation, the power and size properties of ten cointegration tests are assessed. We find that in high-frequency settings typical for stock price data, power is still acceptable, with the exception of strong or very frequent non-reversible jumps. Phillips–Perron and PGFF tests perform best. Keywords: cointegration testing; high-frequency; stylized facts; conditional heteroskedasticity; smooth transition autoregressive models 1. Introduction The concept of cointegration has been empirically applied to a wide range of financial and macroeconomic data. In recent years, interest has surged in identifying cointegration relationships in high-frequency financial market data (see, among others, [1–5]). However, it remains unclear whether standard cointegration tests are truly robust against the specifics of high-frequency settings.
    [Show full text]